6.  The applicants, Mr V.M. and Mrs G.S.M., and four of their children were born in 1981, 1977, 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2011 respectively and live in Serbia. Their eldest daughter, who was also an applicant, was born in 2001 and subsequently died on 18 December 2011 after the application had been lodged.
7.  The applicants are of Roma origin and were born in Serbia, where they spent the greater part of their lives. They explained that they decided to leave their country for Kosovo because of the discrimination and ill‑treatment they had suffered on account of their origin in every sphere: access to the employment market, medical care, schooling difficulties and so forth.
8.  The eldest daughter of the first two applicants had been physically and mentally disabled since birth and had suffered from epilepsy.
9.  After failing to obtain a more secure situation for themselves in Kosovo, in March 2010 the applicants travelled to France, where they lodged an application for asylum. Their application was rejected by a final decision on 4 June 2010.
10.  The applicants stated that in the meantime they had returned to Kosovo, and then to Serbia, in May 2010 owing to the precariousness of their situation in France and their inability to provide for their essential needs.
11.  In March 2011, as their situation had not changed, the applicants decided to go to Belgium, where they lodged an asylum application on 1 April 2011.
12.  During their interview with the “Dublin” department of the Aliens Office on 4 April 2011 the applicants gave an account of their movements to date and expressed their fears in the event of a return to Serbia. The first applicant stated that he had chosen to seek asylum in Belgium because he had been told that he could obtain better treatment for his disabled daughter there. He said that he was suffering from psychological problems. The second applicant said that Belgium had been the choice of the smuggler. When asked about her health, she replied that she was six months’ pregnant. She also mentioned their eldest daughter’s health problems.
13.  The applicants maintained that they had explained the reasons why they refused to return to France, where they had been living in extremely precarious conditions. They submitted that they had not been asked to provide any evidence of having left the territory of the Member States of the European Union (“EU”) or regarding the family members’ state of health.
14.  On 12 April 2011 the Belgian authorities sent France requests to take the applicants back on the grounds that the latter had been unable to prove that they had left the territory of the Member States of the EU for Serbia since their stay in France.
15.  On 22 April 2011, relying on Article 16(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third‑country national (“the Dublin II Regulation”), France refused to take charge of the applicants on the grounds that the couple were considered to have disappeared since May 2010 because they had not collected the notice of final refusal of their asylum application dated 4 June 2010 and this corroborated their statements to the Aliens Office according to which they had left the Schengen Area in 2010 and re-entered it in March 2011, thus leaving for a period of more than three months.
16.  On 2 May 2011 the Belgian authorities asked the French authorities to reconsider their position given that there was no conclusive evidence that the family had left the territory of the Member States for more than three months since their stay in France and the applicants were clearly aware of the rejection of their asylum application in France.
17.  On 6 May 2011 France accepted the request to take the family back pursuant to Article 16(1)(e) of the Dublin II Regulation.
18.  On 17 May 2011 the Aliens Office issued decisions refusing the applicants leave to remain and ordering them to leave the country for France on the grounds that under Article 16(1)(e) of the Dublin II Regulation Belgium was not responsible for examining the asylum application and that France had agreed to take charge of the family. The decisions indicated among other things that the family, who were originally from Kosovo, “had not furnished evidence of their stay” in Kosovo after staying in France nor any certificates regarding any medical treatment or care in respect of the pregnancy, or concerning the child or the father. Considering that France was a country which respected human rights, had democratic institutions, had ratified the Convention and the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, and was bound to implement the directives of the European Union on asylum and that if a return were to raise a problem under Article 3 of the Convention, the family could always lodge an application with the Court for interim measures, the Aliens Office considered that the Belgian authorities did not have to use the sovereignty clause provided for in Article 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation.
19.  Accordingly, the applicants were ordered to leave the country within seven days and to report to the French authorities at the border crossing. On the same day the applicants were issued with laissez-passer.
20.  On 19 May 2011 the applicants, through their legal representative, contacted the Aliens Office for the purposes of providing it with evidence that they had left the territory of the European Union for more than three months (gynaecologist’s certificates, the second applicant’s health card and proof of enrolment at school of one of their children).
21.  On 25 May 2011 execution of the orders to leave the country were extended until 25 September 2011 on account of the fact that the second applicant was soon due to give birth.
22.  On 16 June 2011 the applicants lodged an application with the Aliens Appeals Board for the decisions refusing them residence permits and ordering them to leave the country to be set aside and for a stay of execution. They argued that the decisions, with the reasons given therein, had not provided them with the examination required by Article 13 taken together with Article 3 of the Convention (M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 336, ECHR 2011) of their fears regarding a return to Serbia and of their health problems. Firstly, the reasoning was erroneous and incomplete (error as to their nationality, identifying them as Kosovars instead of Serbs, failure to mention their return to Serbia and their Roma origin). Secondly, they could not be blamed for having failed to provide, during their Dublin interview, documents certifying their health problems and their movements to date or for not having substantiated their fears regarding a transfer to France. Like all Dublin asylum-seekers at that time, when they had attended those interviews they had not been assisted by a lawyer or informed of the documents that they should bring and no document had been requested of them. As they had expressed their fears, the Belgian authorities should have asked the appropriate questions and requested the relevant documents in order to ensure that their return did not infringe their fundamental rights. The applicants also argued that France should not have been determined as the State responsible for examining their asylum applications. Under Article 16(3) of the Dublin II Regulation, the obligations regarding the determination of the State responsible ceased where the third-country national had left the territory of the Member States for at least three months. That was precisely the position the applicants had been in on account of their return to Serbia from May 2010 to March 2011 as certified by the documents subsequently sent to the Aliens Office (see paragraph 20 above). Lastly, they submitted that the Belgian authorities should have used the sovereignty clause or the humanitarian clause both on account of their special vulnerability and of the notoriously difficult situation of the Roma minority in Serbia and of the conditions for the reception of asylum-seekers in France.
23.  The hearing before the Aliens Appeals Board took place on 26 August 2011.
24.  On 23 September 2011 the applicants unsuccessfully sought a further extension of the order to leave the country pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Aliens Appeals Board.
25.  On 27 September 2011 the applicants lodged an application with the Court for interim measures suspending their transfer to France pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Aliens Appeals Board.
26.  On 28 September 2011 the Court refused to indicate an interim measure.
27.  In a judgment of 29 November 2011 the Aliens Appeals Board ruled on the application to have the decisions refusing residence permits and ordering the applicants to leave the country set aside and for a stay of execution.
28.  The Aliens Appeals Board dismissed the ground of appeal regarding the conditions of reception in France and based on the risk alleged by the applicants of being exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. It found as follows:
“... the Board cannot but observe that the applicants have failed to show that they encountered difficulties in their dealings with the French authorities regarding access to health care for their child or their conditions of reception as asylum-seekers. They have not adduced so much as a shred of evidence regarding the circumstances of the ill-treatment they have allegedly suffered and have merely asserted in their application, without substantiating this with the slightest evidence that could corroborate the facts, “that they found themselves in an extremely precarious situation at the time of lodging their application for asylum and that their only refuge was a night hostel that they had to leave the next morning”. Moreover, although their daughter’s disability had been specified in the “Dublin form”, the parties have not made any allegation whatsoever before the Aliens Appeals Board of encountering particular difficulties in the reception of asylum-seekers as organised by the relevant French authorities.”
29.  The Aliens Appeals Board also criticised the applicants for failing to produce in full the NGO reports that they had cited in support of their application, which had prevented it from checking whether the extracts produced did actually concern France.
30.  The Aliens Appeals Board set the decisions aside, however, on the ground that the Aliens Office had not established the legal basis on which it considered that France was the State responsible for examining the applicants’ asylum application.
31.  On 23 December 2011 the Belgian State lodged an appeal on points of law with the Conseil d’État against the Aliens Appeals Board’s judgment. It disputed the Aliens Appeals Board’s analysis of the applicable legal basis.
32.  In an order of 12 January 2012 the Conseil d’État declared the appeal admissible. In a judgment of 28 February 2013 it rejected it for lack of current interest on the grounds that the operative provisions of the Aliens Appeals Board’s judgment were no longer a source of complaint for the applicants because they had returned to Serbia and had left the territory of the Member States for more than three months with the result that Belgium was relieved of any obligation in the process of determining which Member State was responsible for their asylum application.
33.  In the meantime, on 22 September 2011, the applicants had lodged an application for leave to remain on medical grounds under section 9ter of the Aliens (Entry, Residence, Settlement and Expulsion) Act of 15 December 1980 (“the Aliens Act”) on behalf of their eldest daughter. They referred to the extreme precariousness of their position and the discrimination they had suffered as Roms in Serbia and Kosovo. Citing several international reports in support of their submissions, they argued that for that reason they had no guarantee that they would be able to obtain the necessary treatment for their daughter’s health condition. They sought temporary leave to remain pending the outcome of the asylum proceedings they had instituted in Belgium.
34.  On 30 September 2011 the Aliens Office declared their application inadmissible on the grounds that the medical certificate of 26 June 2011 (see paragraph 38 below), produced in support of their application to have their residence status regularised, certified the existence of a medical problem and stipulated the treatment considered necessary but, contrary to the requirements of section 9ter § 3, 3o of the Aliens Act, did not specify the degree of seriousness of the condition.
35.  The applicants indicated in their observations in reply that they had learnt of the existence of that decision during the proceedings before the Court.
36.  On 1 April 2011 the Federal agency for the reception of asylum-seekers (“Fedasil”) assigned the applicants a reception facility as their mandatory place of registration, namely, Morlanwez asylum-seekers’ reception centre.
37.  The social worker from the centre took down the following account by the applicants of the conditions of their reception in France:
“The family decided to leave France because they had no means of subsistence. They were living in a night shelter which they had to leave in the day. They and the children were out on the streets from 7 a.m. They had to use a pushchair as a wheelchair for S., who is disabled. They had no information of any kind apart from the status of asylum-seeker which had been given to them on their arrival. No doctor, no social worker, no lawyer, no interpreter. They had absolutely no means of communication. They had no idea what they should do or what to expect. S. was not receiving any medical treatment of any kind. When her health deteriorated and she had to be taken to hospital, it was the mother’s sister who drove her to the emergency ward at the hospital and acted as interpreter. Once at the hospital the little girl had [epileptic] fits and her hair fell out. That was what decided the family to return to Serbia”.
38.  The eldest daughter was examined on 26 June 2011 by a neuro‑psychiatrist at Jolimont-Lobbes Hospital and a medical certificate was drawn up on that day certifying the child’s disabilities.
39.  In that certificate, which was sent to the Aliens Office on 1 July 2011, the doctor noted that the child had “cerebral palsy with epilepsy”, suffered from “severe axial and peripheral hypotonia”, that she could not sit up unassisted and soiled her underwear, that she could not talk and appeared not to understand others. He also noted that the child was taking medicines and that she required physiotherapy and appropriate equipment (orthopaedic braces, seat-brace). Those medical findings were confirmed by a neurological examination carried out on 1 July 2011.
40.  The eldest daughter was admitted to hospital on 7 and 8 July 2011 for her epileptic fits and a neurological report drawn up.
41.  After the second applicant gave birth on 26 July 2011 the family were assigned a new reception centre on 5 August 2011 in an open centre suitable for families, in Saint-Trond in the province of Limbourg.
42.  On 26 September 2011, when the order extending execution of the order to leave the country expired, and as they could no longer benefit from material assistance for refugees, the applicants were removed from the Saint-Trond reception centre.
43.  The applicants travelled to Brussels, where voluntary associations indicated a public square in the municipality of Schaerbeek, in the centre of the Brussels-Capital administrative district, where other homeless Roma families were also staying. They stayed there from 27 September to 5 October 2011.
44.  On 29 September 2011, through their legal representative, the applicants asked the French-speaking community’s General Delegate to the Rights of the Child to intervene urgently with the national authorities responsible for the reception of asylum-seekers.
45.  On the same day the General Delegate sent a letter to the Director-General of Fedasil requesting that accommodation be found urgently.
46.  A signed statement by the General Delegate dated 2 October 2011 indicated that he also contacted the municipality of Schaerbeek in an attempt to find urgent accommodation for the family. According to the General Delegate, the municipal authorities stated that they did not have power to make a decision and that it was for the federal authorities to decide, and Fedasil declared that it did not have power on account of the decision taken by the Aliens Office regarding France’s responsibility for processing the asylum request (see paragraph 18 above). Fedasil also stated that the application to the Aliens Appeals Board (see paragraph 22 above) was not of suspensive effect, which was why the reception centre had applied the rules terminating the right to material assistance.
47.   On 5 October 2011, following the intervention of the General Delegate, the Secretary of State’s office for Asylum and Migration, Social Integration and the Fight against Poverty instructed Fedasil to designate a reception centre as a matter of urgency.
48.  After spending two days at the transit centre of the Woluwe‑Saint‑Pierre municipality, also in the Brussels-Capital administrative district, on 7 October 2011 the applicants were assigned a new reception centre as a mandatory place of registration: the Bovigny reception centre for asylum-seekers in the province of Luxembourg approximately 160 km from Brussels.
49.  The Government maintained that the applicants had failed to register at the centre. The applicants, for their part, stated that they had gone there by train and a special bus but had been sent back to Brussels to Fedasil’s Dispatching Department on the grounds that their “annex 26quater [order to leave the country] was invalid.”
50.  When they got back to Brussels on 7 October 2011 the applicants got off the train at the Brussels Gare du Nord, where they remained without any means of subsistence and with no accommodation despite the very cold weather for nearly three more weeks until their return to Serbia was organised via a charitable organisation as part of the Fedasil return programme. The applicants left Belgium for Serbia on 25 October 2011.
51.  In the meantime, on 12 October 2011, the applicants’ mandatory place of residence had been changed to code 207 “no-show” (see paragraph 81 below) and on 25 November 2011 the applicants’ names were deleted from the waiting register.
52.  After their return to Serbia their eldest daughter’s health deteriorated, forcing the applicants to leave the room they had rented on account of the insalubrious conditions. They went to stay with a relative in Novi-Sad and then to the suburbs in Belgrade.
53.  The applicants’ eldest daughter was admitted to hospital on 4 December 2011 suffering from a lung infection. She died on 18 December 2011.
54.  In a letter to their lawyer of 21 November 2012 the applicants stated that they had been attacked by Serbs on a number of occasions: among other incidents, some men had driven by in a car and broken the windows of their home by throwing stones, and had uttered threats, complaining of their links with the “Belgians” and ordering them to leave Serbia. The first applicant had attempted to defend himself and been beaten up twice by his attackers.